Prince Edward County citizens group Save Picton Bay are to face the municipality and Picton Terminals in a courtroom Wednesday.

The group has engaged environmental lawyer Eric Gillespie to get an answer as to whether the shipping port is allowed to continue operations under ‘legal non-conforming agreement’ zoning.

Gillespie is challenging language in an old zoning bylaw to see it it allows the business to continue shipping and storing salt, bauxite, petcoke and strip mine the limestone.

Council is responsible for zoning land uses, while the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change is responsible for environmental issues.

Save Picton Bay seeks a determination of its rights and those of its members and other residents of the County through interpretation of the current zoning bylaw and previous zoning bylaw.

It also seeks a declaration that the current use of Picton Terminals is not permitted and in the alternative, a declaration that Picton Terminals is restricted to only the storage and transhipment of salt.

The County, represented by Templeman LLP, and Picton Terminals, represented by Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP both submit Save Picton Bay’s application should be dismissed with costs.

David DeMille, of Templeman, states the transshipment of commodities was a lawful use pursuant to the present bylaw enacted in 2006 and that the lands were being used for transshipment operation prior to the bylaw. It states the operation is a legal non-conforming use under the planning act.

The difference in the types of commodities and goods being shipped is stated as “simply a difference in degree and not in kind” – noting farm products, bio-mass, steel products, recycled scrap steel and wine barrels. DeMille states “there is no evidence that the shipment of any of these products has had any adverse impact on the neighbourhood.”

He notes allegations of the impact of salt storage are being addressed by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.